APPENDIX O Metropolitan Transportation Plan and General Plan and EIR Analysis

Transcription

1 APPENDIX O Metropolitan Transportation Plan and General Plan and EIR Analysis

2

3 APPENDIX 0 APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES AND POLICIES A Transit Priority Project EIR may be used for any transit priority project that has incorporated all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria set forth in the prior applicable environmental impact reports (Public Resources Code, (a)). The following EIRs have been reviewed to determine applicability for the Sacramento Commons project (proposed project): Sacramento 2030 General Plan Master EIR (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No ), certified on March 3, 2009; and MTP/SCS Program EIR (SCH No ), certified April 19, This appendix sets forth mitigation measures from the 2030 General Plan Master EIR and MTP/SCS Program EIR, as well as General Plan policies discussed in the 2030 General Plan Master EIR, including policies that establish applicable performance standards or criteria. The project applicant has agreed to incorporate feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, and criteria as set forth in the 2030 General Plan Master EIR and the MTP/SCS Program EIR to the extent they apply into the proposed project. Table O-1 identifies mitigation measures included in the MTP/SCS Program EIR and discusses their relationship to the proposed project. identifies mitigation measures and mitigating policies referenced in the 2030 General Plan Master EIR and describes their relationship to the proposed project. The 2030 General Plan Master EIR identified mitigating policies to address one or more potential environmental impacts associated with General Plan buildout. Some mitigating policies and mitigation measures included in the MTP/SCS Program EIR and the City s 2030 General Plan Master EIR are not applicable to the proposed project because of the location of the project site or the proposed land uses, as noted in Tables O-1 and O-2. In other instances, mitigation measures or mitigating policies referenced in the prior EIRs call for studies or reports to be prepared and considered as part of project-level review. Where these studies or reports were prepared to support this EIR, Tables O-1 and O-2 discuss the relevant analyses in this EIR and related appendices. The MTP/SCS Program EIR mitigation measures and mitigating policies in the General Plan Master EIR were developed to address impacts associated with projects throughout the region and throughout the City s Policy Area. As discussed in Tables O-1 and O-2, where appropriate, project-specific mitigation measures have been developed to implement Citywide or regional mitigation strategies in a way that is relevant to the proposed project and project site. The proposed project was initiated when the 2030 General Plan was in force. Since that time, the City has prepared an update to the 2030 General Plan and anticipates adopting the new 2035 General Plan sometime in early Chapter 4 of this EIR identifies policy changes contemplated as a part of the 2035 General Plan that pertain to the proposed project. Since it is not possible to know which of these changes will be incorporated into the adopted 2035 General Plan, this Appendix focuses on relevant 2030 General Plan goals and policies. Sacramento Commons Administrative Draft EIR AECOM City of Sacramento O-1 Applicable Mitigation Measures and Policies

4 Table O-1 MTP/SCS Programmatic Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Chapter 3: Aesthetics Mitigation Measure AES-1: Reduce sun glare resulting from implementation of new transportation projects. The implementing agency should minimize and control glare from transportation projects through the adoption of project design features that reduce glare. These features include: plant trees along transportation corridors to reduce glare from the sun; create tree wells in existing sidewalks; add trees in new curb extensions and traffic circles; add trees to public parks and greenways; tree species should provide significant shade cover when mature utilities should be installed underground along these routes wherever feasible to allow trees to grow and provide shade without need for severe pruning; landscape off-street parking areas, loading areas, and service areas. Mitigation Measure AES-2: Design structures to avoid or reduce impacts resulting from glare. The implementing agency should minimize and control glare from land use and transportation projects through the adoption of project design features that reduce glare. These features include: limiting the use of reflective materials, such as metal; using non-reflective material, such as paint, vegetative screening, matte finish coatings, and masonry; screening parking areas by using vegetation or trees; using low-reflective glass; and complying with applicable general plan policies or local controls related to glare. Mitigation Measure AES-3: Design lighting to minimize light trespass and glare. The implementing agency should impose lighting standards that ensure that minimum safety and security needs are addressed and minimize light trespass and glare. These standards include the following: minimize incidental spillover of light onto adjacent private properties and undeveloped open space; The MTP/SCS Program EIR includes separate impact discussions for land use and transportation projects. As the proposed project is a land use project, mitigation measures applicable only to transportation projects are not applicable to the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project s PUD Guidelines (Appendix N) demonstrate the project will minimize glare through the use of project design features that reduce glare. The PUD Guidelines describe the use of low lighting focused on a safe pedestrian environment and preventing unnecessary light spillage or glare on adjacent residential units. The proposed project also includes a landscaping plan that will help to minimize glare from building windows. Please refer to Appendix N (pp. 27, 43, 49, 53, 58, and 59) for more detail on project design and glare. The MTP/SCS Program EIR includes separate impact discussions for land use and transportation projects. As the proposed project is a land use project, mitigation measures applicable only to transportation projects are not applicable to the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project s PUD Guidelines (Appendix N) address similar topics as those described in this mitigation measure. As described in the project s PUD Guidelines (Appendix N), the project will minimize glare through the use of project design features that reduce glare, as well as the use of non-reflective building materials. The PUD Guidelines describe the use of low lighting focused on a safe pedestrian environment and preventing unnecessary light spillage or glare on adjacent residential units. The proposed project would also reduce glare associated with parking as compared to existing conditions by removing all surface parking lots and replacing those lots with parking garages that would more effectively screen parked cars and headlights. Please refer to Appendix N (pp. 27, 43, 49, 53, 58, and 59) for more detail on project design and glare This mitigation measure has been incorporated into the project design. As described in the project s PUD Guidelines (Appendix N), the project will minimize glare through the use of project design features that reduce glare. The PUD Guidelines describe the use of low lighting focused on a safe pedestrian environment and preventing unnecessary light spillage or glare on adjacent residential units. Illuminated signs must be designed, located, and screened to limit direct light sources on residential units in the PUD area, and such signs are subject to review and approval during the Site AECOM Sacramento Commons Administrative Draft EIR Applicable Mitigation Measures and Policies O-2 City of Sacramento

5 Mitigation Measure Table O-1 MTP/SCS Programmatic Mitigation Measures direct luminaries away from habitat and open space areas adjacent to the project site; install luminaries that provide good color rendering and natural light qualities; and minimize the potential for back scatter into the nighttime sky and for incidental spillover of light onto adjacent private properties and undeveloped open space. Mitigation Measure AES-4: Protect panoramic views and views of significant landscape features or landforms. The implementing agency should protect panoramic views and views of significant landscape features or landforms by taking the following (or equivalent) actions: require that the scale and massing of new development in higher-density areas provide appropriate transitions in building height and bulk that are sensitive to the physical and visual character of adjoining neighborhoods that have lower development intensities and building heights; ensure building heights stepped back from sensitive adjoining uses to maintain appropriate transitions in scale and to protect scenic views; avoid electric towers, solar power facilities, wind power facilities, communication transmission facilities and/or above ground lines along scenic roadways and routes, to the maximum feasible extent; prohibit projects and activities that would obscure, detract from, or negatively affect the quality of views from designated scenic roadways or scenic highways; and comply with other local general plan policies and local control related to the protection of panoramic or scenic views or views of significant landscape features or landforms. Mitigation Measure AES-5: Design river crossings to minimize aesthetic and visual impacts and to protect scenic and panoramic views of significant landscape features and landforms to the greatest feasible extent. The implementing agency should design river crossings to protect the important elements of scenic vistas, including panoramic views and views of significant landscape features or landforms. Such design elements could include: designing the facility with aesthetics and dimensions which are architecturally pleasing and contextually appropriate for the adjacent neighborhoods; designing the facility to not exceed or expand the capacity of the approach roadway; and prohibiting design features that obscure, detract from, or negatively affect Plan and Design Review process or through a signage permit. Please refer to Appendix N (pp. 27, 43, 49, 53, 58, and 59) for more detail on project design and glare. This mitigation measure is also incorporated into the project and will be included in the MMRP for this project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21099(d)(1), aesthetic impacts of a residential or mixed-use project located on an infill site within a transit priority area, such as the proposed project, shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. CEQA only requires mitigation measures to be adopted to address potentially significant impacts. Therefore, programmatic mitigation measures proposed to address potential aesthetic impacts are not applicable to the proposed project. Although not required under CEQA, this EIR includes a comprehensive assessment of visual and aesthetic changes associated with implementation of the proposed project. As discussed in Section 4.1 (Aesthetics), the proposed project does not have the potential to impact panoramic views or views of significant landscape features or landforms. Section 4.1 also addresses the scale, massing, and height of the proposed project and the surrounding area. As described in Section 4.1 and the project s PUD Guidelines, the project is consistent with the City s building height standards. The MTP/SCS Program EIR includes separate impact discussions for land use and transportation projects. As the proposed project is a land use project, mitigation measures applicable only to transportation projects are not applicable to the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project does not require any bridges or river crossings. Sacramento Commons Administrative Draft EIR AECOM City of Sacramento O-3 Applicable Mitigation Measures and Policies

6 Table O-1 MTP/SCS Programmatic Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure the quality of views from public viewing areas. Mitigation Measure AES-6: Design projects to be visually compatible with surrounding areas. The implementing agency should design projects to minimize contrasts in scale and massing between the project and surrounding natural forms and developments. Strategies to achieve compatibility include: avoiding large cuts and fills when the visual environment (natural or urban) would be substantially disrupted; siting or designing projects to minimize their intrusion into important viewsheds; using contour grading to match surrounding terrain; developing transportation systems to be compatible with the surrounding environments (e.g., colors and materials of construction material; scale of improvements); avoiding the use of non-native landscaping; if exotic vegetation is used, it should be used as screening and landscaping that blends in and complements the natural landscape; protecting or replacing trees in the project area; using grading that blends with the adjacent landforms and topography; landscaping new slopes and embankments with compatible grasses, shrubs, and trees to soften cuts and edges; and designing new structures to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with existing structures. Mitigation Measure AES 7: Implement Mitigation Measure AES 3. The MTP/SCS Program EIR evaluates programmatic impacts both regionally and within various sub-regions. The proposed project is located in the overlapping Center and Corridor Communities and Sacramento County TPA sub-regions. The MTP/SCS Program EIR does not conclude this mitigation measure is required to address aesthetic impacts in either the Center and Corridor Communities or Sacramento County TPA subregions. Furthermore, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21099(d)(1) aesthetic impacts of a residential or mixed-use project located on an infill site within a transit priority area, such as the proposed project, shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. CEQA only requires mitigation measures to be adopted to address potentially significant impacts. Therefore, programmatic mitigation measures proposed to address potential aesthetic impacts are not applicable to the proposed project. Although not required under CEQA, this EIR includes a detailed and comprehensive assessment of visual and aesthetic changes associated with implementation of the proposed project. Section 4.1 (Aesthetics) addresses the scale and massing of the proposed project and the surrounding area. See discussion related to Mitigation Measure AES-3. Mitigation Measure AES-8: Reduce the visibility of construction-related activities. The implementing agency should reduce the visibility of construction-related activities by taking the following (or equivalent) actions: restrict construction activities to permitted hours in accordance with local jurisdiction regulations; locate materials and stationary equipment such as generators, compressors, rock crushers, cement mixers, etc. as far from sensitive receptors as possible; Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(d)(1), aesthetic impacts of a residential or mixed-use project located on an infill site within a transit priority area, such as the proposed project, shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. CEQA only requires mitigation measures to be adopted to address potentially significant impacts. Therefore, programmatic mitigation measures proposed to address potential aesthetic impacts are not applicable to the proposed project. Moreover, the City of Sacramento Noise Ordinance restricts noise- AECOM Sacramento Commons Administrative Draft EIR Applicable Mitigation Measures and Policies O-4 City of Sacramento

7 Mitigation Measure Table O-1 MTP/SCS Programmatic Mitigation Measures locate materials and stationary equipment in such a way as to prevent glare, light, or shadow from impacting surrounding uses and minimize blockage of scenic resources; and reduce the visibility of construction staging areas by fencing or screening these areas with low-contrast materials consistent with the surrounding environment. Mitigation Measure AES 9: Implement Mitigation Measure AES 8. generating activities and provides an exemption for construction occurring during the daytime (consistent with the recommendation in Mitigation Measure AES-8). In addition, Mitigation Measure in this EIR requires stationary construction equipment to be placed away from sensitive receptors, consistent with Mitigation Measure AES-8 of the MTP/SCS EIR. Mitigation Measure 4.9-3a in Section 4.9 of this EIR also includes limits to when construction is permitted. See discussion related to Mitigation Measure AES-8, above. Mitigation Measure AES 10: Implement Mitigation Measure AES 8. Mitigation Measure AES-11: Re-vegetate exposed earth surfaces. The implementing agency should minimize short-term visual impacts of construction by revegetating slopes and exposed earth surfaces at the earliest opportunity. See discussion related to Mitigation Measure AES-8, above. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(d)(1), aesthetic impacts of a residential or mixed-use project located on an infill site within a transit priority area, such as the proposed project, shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. CEQA only requires mitigation measures to be adopted to address potentially significant impacts. Therefore, programmatic mitigation measures proposed to address potential aesthetic impacts are not applicable to the proposed project. Although not required under CEQA, this EIR includes a detailed and comprehensive assessment of visual and aesthetic changes associated with implementation of the proposed project. Section 4.1 (Aesthetics) addresses the proposed landscaping plan for the proposed project. Mitigation Measure AES-12: Minimize contrasts between the project and surrounding areas. The implementing agency should ensure that projects use natural landscaping to minimize contrasts between the projects and surrounding areas. Wherever possible, the implementing agency should develop interchanges and transit lines at the grade of the surrounding land to limit view blockage. Project designs should contour the edges of major cut-and-fill slopes to provide a more natural-looking finished profile. The project does not propose to remove vegetation on slopes, as the project site is flat. In addition, the project site is already developed. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21099(d)(1) aesthetic impacts of a residential or mixed-use project located on an infill site within a transit priority area, such as the proposed project, shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. CEQA only requires mitigation measures to be adopted to address potentially significant impacts. Therefore, programmatic mitigation measures proposed to address potential aesthetic impacts are not applicable to the proposed project. Although not required under CEQA, this EIR includes a detailed and comprehensive assessment of visual and aesthetic changes associated Sacramento Commons Administrative Draft EIR AECOM City of Sacramento O-5 Applicable Mitigation Measures and Policies

8 Mitigation Measure Table O-1 MTP/SCS Programmatic Mitigation Measures with implementation of the proposed project. Section 4.1 (Aesthetics) addresses the proposed landscaping plan for the proposed project. Mitigation Measure AES-13: Replace and renew landscaping along roadway corridors and development sites. The implementing agency should replace and renew landscaping to the greatest extent possible along corridors with transportation improvements and at development sites. The implementing agency should plan landscaping in new corridors and developments to respect existing natural and man-made features and to complement the dominant landscaping of surrounding areas. Mitigation Measure AG-1: Mitigate for loss of farmland. The implementing agency should mitigate for loss of farmland by requiring permanent protection of in-kind farmland at a 1:1 ratio, in the form of easements, fees, or elimination of development rights/potential. Mitigation Measure AG 2: Implement Mitigation Measure AG 1. Mitigation Measure AG-3: Mitigate for loss of forest land or timberland. The implementing agency should mitigate for loss of forest land or timberland by requiring permanent protection of in-kind land at a 1:1 ratio, in the form of easements or fees and elimination of development rights/potential. In addition, this mitigation measure from the MTP/SCS EIR applies to transportation projects and the proposed project evaluated in this EIR is a land development project and does not propose major cuts or fills that would alter the existing natural topography. Finally, the proposed project site is developed under existing conditions and this mitigation measure relates to transportation projects in undeveloped areas. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(d)(1), aesthetic impacts of a residential or mixed-use project located on an infill site within a transit priority area, such as the proposed project, shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. CEQA only requires mitigation measures to be adopted to address potentially significant impacts. Therefore, programmatic mitigation measures proposed to address potential aesthetic impacts are not applicable to the proposed project. Although not required under CEQA, this EIR includes a detailed and comprehensive assessment of visual and aesthetic changes associated with implementation of the proposed project. Section 4.1 (Aesthetics) addresses the proposed landscaping plan for the proposed project. As noted, the landscaping plan involves tree planting and other landscaping along public rights-of-way both on the edges and in the interior of the project site, in the same locations that feature landscaping under existing conditions. See Section 4.1, as well as Chapter 2 of this EIR (Project Description) for details. CEQA only requires mitigation measures to be adopted to address potentially significant impacts. The proposed project has no impact on agricultural resources. Therefore, this mitigation measure is not applicable to the proposed project. See discussion related to Mitigation Measure AG-1. CEQA only requires mitigation measures to be adopted to address potentially significant impacts. The proposed project has no impact on forest land or timberland. Therefore, this mitigation measure is not applicable to the proposed project. AECOM Sacramento Commons Administrative Draft EIR Applicable Mitigation Measures and Policies O-6 City of Sacramento

9 Table O-1 MTP/SCS Programmatic Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure AG-4: Inventory innovative ideas and best practices from the RUCS toolkit, USEPA and USDA Supporting Sustainable Rural Communities publication, and other sources and implement a locally appropriate strategy to manage growth issues at the rural-urban interface to support the long-term viability of agriculture in the SACOG region. CEQA only requires mitigation measures to be adopted to address potentially significant impacts. The proposed project has no impact on agricultural resources. Therefore, this mitigation measure is not applicable to the proposed project. The implementing agency should mitigate to avoid or minimize general pressure to convert agriculture land at the urban edge to non-agricultural uses by adopting regulations that enforce the innovations and best practices identified to minimize conversion pressures on farmland. Mitigation Measure AG 5: Implement Mitigation Measure AG 3. Mitigation Measure AG-6: Minimize construction-related impacts to agricultural and forestry resources. The implementing agency should: restrict construction activities to permitted hours in accordance with local jurisdiction regulations; locate materials and stationary equipment such as generators, compressors, rock crushers, cement mixers, etc. as far from conflicting uses as possible; locate materials and stationary equipment in such a way as to prevent conflict with agricultural and forestry resources; and minimize conflict between construction vehicles and agricultural operations on roads that facilitate agricultural operations. CEQA only requires mitigation measures to be adopted to address potentially significant impacts. The proposed project has no impact on agricultural resources, forest land, or timberland. Therefore, this mitigation measure is not applicable to the proposed project. CEQA only requires mitigation measures to be adopted to address potentially significant impacts. The proposed project has no impact on agricultural resources. Therefore, this mitigation measure is not applicable to the proposed project. Mitigation Measure AG 7: Implement Mitigation Measure AES 3. See discussion related to Mitigation Measure AES-3. Chapter 5: Air Quality Mitigation Measure AIR 1: Implementing agencies should require air quality modeling for individual land use and transportation projects to determine whether thresholds of significance for long-term operational criteria air pollutant emissions are Air quality modeling was performed in preparing this EIR. As demonstrated in Section 4.2 (Air Quality), the modeling demonstrates that the proposed project will not exceed long-term operations thresholds. Preparation of this Sacramento Commons Administrative Draft EIR AECOM City of Sacramento O-7 Applicable Mitigation Measures and Policies

10 Table O-1 MTP/SCS Programmatic Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure exceeded and apply recommended applicable mitigation measures as defined by the applicable local air district. Implementing agencies should require modeling to identify long-term operational emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 to determine if the project will exceed the thresholds of significance established by the applicable local air district. Projects that exceed the long-term operational thresholds shall mitigate the air quality impacts using all feasible mitigation. Mitigation Measure AIR 2: Adhere to ARB Handbook siting guidance to the maximum extent possible. The implementing agencies should adhere to the ARB Handbook siting guidance to the maximum extent possible. Where sensitive land uses or TAC sources would be sited within the minimum ARB-recommended distances, a screening-level HRA shall be conducted to determine, based on site-specific and project-specific characteristics, and all feasible mitigation best management practices (BMPs) shall be implemented. The HRA protocols of the applicable local air districts shall be followed or, where a district/office does not have adopted protocols, the protocol of SMAQMD or CAPCOA shall be followed. BMPs shall be applied as recommended and applicable, to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level where feasible. The HRA should give particular attention to the nature of the receptor, recognizing that some receptors are particularly sensitive (e.g., schools, day care centers, assisted living and senior centers, and hospitals) and may require special measures. Examples of BMPs known at this time to be effective include: install passive (drop-in) electrostatic filtering systems (especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 MPH)) as a part of the HVAC project HVAC system(s); orient air intakes away from TAC sources to the maximum extent possible; and use tiered tree planting between roadways and sensitive receptors wherever feasible, using native, needled (coniferous) species, ensure a permanent irrigation source, and provide permanent funding to maintain and care for the trees. Mitigation Measure AIR-3: Implementing agencies should require assessment of new and existing odor sources for individual land use projects to determine whether sensitive receptors would be exposed to objectionable odors and apply recommended applicable mitigation measures as defined by the applicable local air district and best practices. Implementing agencies should require assessment of new and existing odor sources EIR and the project-specific analysis conducted as part of the EIR satisfy the requirements of this mitigation measure. Therefore, this mitigation measure will not be included in the MMRP prepared for the proposed project because it has been satisfied and no further actions or monitoring relating to this mitigation measure is necessary. Air quality analysis and modeling was performed in preparing this EIR. As demonstrated in Section 4.2 of this EIR (Air Quality), the analysis and modeling demonstrates that the proposed project will not expose sensitive receptors to short-term or long-term toxic air contaminant (TAC) concentrations. See, in particular, the discussion under Impact The project site is not located within ARB-specified distances of any identified sources of toxic air contaminant sources. Preparation of this EIR and the project-specific analysis conducted as part of the EIR satisfy the requirements of this mitigation measure. Therefore, this mitigation measure will not be included in the MMRP prepared for the proposed project because it has been satisfied and no further actions or monitoring relating to this mitigation measure is necessary. CEQA only requires mitigation measures to be adopted to address potentially significant impacts. The proposed project has less than significant effects related to odors. Therefore, this mitigation measure will not be included in the MMRP prepared for the proposed project because it has been satisfied and no further actions or monitoring relating to this mitigation measure is necessary. AECOM Sacramento Commons Administrative Draft EIR Applicable Mitigation Measures and Policies O-8 City of Sacramento

11 Table O-1 MTP/SCS Programmatic Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure for individual land use projects to determine whether sensitive receptors would be exposed to objectionable odors and apply recommended applicable mitigation measures as defined by the applicable local air district and best practices. Mitigation Measure AIR-4: Implementing agencies should require project applicants to implement applicable, or equivalent, standard construction mitigation measures. Lead agencies should require project applicants, prior to construction, to implement construction mitigation measures that, at a minimum, meet the requirements of the applicable air district with jurisdiction over the area in which construction activity would occur if the project is anticipated to exceed thresholds of significance for shortterm criteria air pollutant emissions. Projects that exceed these thresholds shall mitigate the air quality impacts using all feasible mitigation. For construction activity on the project site that is anticipated to exceed thresholds of significance, the project applicant(s) shall require construction contractors to implement both Standard Mitigation Measures and Best Available Mitigation Measures for Construction Activity to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible for all construction activity performed in the plan area. Mitigation Measures AIR-5: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR 4. Chapter 6: Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on special-status plant species. Implementing agencies should require project applicants to prepare biological resources assessments for specific projects proposed in areas containing, or likely to contain, habitat for special-status plants. The assessment should be conducted by appropriately trained professionals pursuant to adopted protocols and standards in the industry. Mitigation should be identified on a project level when significance thresholds are exceeded and should include measures to address direct and indirect impacts such as avoidance, minimization, and compensatory measures. Mitigation should be consistent with the requirements of CEQA, USFWS, and CDFG regulations and guidelines, in addition to applicable requirements of an adopted HCP/NCCP or other applicable plans promulgated to protect species/habitat. At a minimum the following performance standards will be implemented by the project applicant for mitigation of impacts to special-status plants: Avoidance of special-status plants will be pursued where feasible, as defined in Section of the CEQA Guidelines. Where avoidance is infeasible, impacts should be mitigated through specialstatus plant habitat restoration or establishment, where appropriate and The Air Quality Section of this EIR (Section 4.2) refers to applicable thresholds of significance developed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Mitigation Measure is a project-specific mitigation measure that implements the requirements of AIR-4 by using Air District standard construction mitigation strategies.. Refer to the discussion related to Mitigation Measure AIR-4. As detailed in Section 4.3 of this EIR (Biological Resources), a biological resource assessment was prepared for the proposed project consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-1. There are no impacts to special-status plant species associated with implementation of the proposed project. Preparation of this EIR and the project-specific analysis conducted as part of the EIR satisfy the requirements of this mitigation measure. Sacramento Commons Administrative Draft EIR AECOM City of Sacramento O-9 Applicable Mitigation Measures and Policies

12 Table O-1 MTP/SCS Programmatic Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure feasible. Habitat will be restored or newly established (on or off site) at a minimum ratio of 1:1 (1 acre restored for each acre impacted). Such mitigation sites will be dedicated either in fee or as an easement in perpetuity held by a qualified organization or agency. The mitigation site will be monitored the first year after the mitigation is implemented and every five years thereafter, until the mitigation is considered to be successful. Guaranteed funding for maintenance of the mitigation sites shall be established. Mitigation will be considered successful if restored areas are determined to be stable and contain at least 60 percent of the number of plants present in the original occurrence. If the population falls below 60 percent of the original number of plants, then remedial action will be required to reach and maintain this 60 percent standard until the mitigation is considered to be successful. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on special-status wildlife species. Implementing agencies should require project applicants to prepare biological resources assessments for specific projects proposed in areas containing, or likely to contain, habitat for special-status wildlife. The assessment should be conducted by appropriately trained professionals pursuant to adopted protocols and standards in the industry. Where the biological resources assessment establishes that mitigation is required to avoid direct and indirect adverse effects on special-status wildlife species, mitigation should be developed consistent with the requirements of CEQA, USFWS, and CDFG regulations and guidelines, in addition to applicable requirements of an adopted HCP/NCCP or other applicable plans promulgated to protect species/habitat. At a minimum the following performance standards will be implemented by the project applicant for mitigation of impacts to special-status wildlife: Avoidance of special-status wildlife and their habitat will be pursued where feasible, as defined in Section of the CEQA Guidelines. Where avoidance is infeasible, impacts should be mitigated through preservation, restoration, or creation of special-status wildlife habitat, where appropriate and feasible. Loss of habitat will be mitigated at an agency approved mitigation bank or through individual mitigation locations as approved by USFWS and/or CDFG. The minimum replacement ratios and typical mitigation for wildlife habitat that could be impacted by the proposed project are presented below in Table The mitigation site will be monitored the first year after the mitigation is implemented and every five years thereafter, until the mitigation is considered to be successful. All mitigation areas should be preserved in perpetuity through either fee As detailed in Section 4.3, a biological resources assessment has been conducted consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-2 and project-specific mitigation has is implemented to avoid significant impacts to special-status wildlife species (see Mitigation Measure 4.3-1). Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a and 4.3-1b implement the recommendations included in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 by avoiding impacts to special-status wildlife species that could potentially be on-site prior to the time of construction. AECOM Sacramento Commons Administrative Draft EIR Applicable Mitigation Measures and Policies O-10 City of Sacramento

13 Table O-1 MTP/SCS Programmatic Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure ownership or a conservation easement held by a qualified conservation organization or agency, establishment of a preserve management plan, and guaranteed long-term funding for site preservation through the establishment of a management endowment. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on special-status fish species. Implementing agencies should require project applicants to prepare biological resources assessments for specific projects proposed in areas containing, or likely to contain, habitat for special-status fish. The assessment should be conducted by appropriately trained professionals pursuant to adopted protocols, and standards in the industry. Mitigation measures should be identified when significance thresholds are exceeded. Mitigation implementation should be consistent with the requirements of CEQA and USFWS, NMFS, and CDFG regulations and guidelines, and/or follow an adopted HCP/NCCP or other applicable plans promulgated to protect species/habitat. The following performance standards should be implemented by the project applicant for mitigation of direct and indirect impacts to special-status wildlife: Avoidance of special-status fish species and their habitat will be pursued where consistent with the project objectives and where feasible, as defined in Section of the CEQA Guidelines. Where impacts are unavoidable, impacts should be mitigated through restoration or enhancement of special-status fish habitat, where appropriate and feasible. Loss of habitat will be mitigated off site at an agency approved mitigation bank or through individual mitigation locations approved, as approved by USFWS and/or CDFG. A minimum ratio of 1:1 (one acre restored or enhanced to one acre of disturbance). The mitigation site will be monitored the first year after the mitigation is implemented and every five years thereafter, until the mitigation is considered to be successful. All mitigation areas should be preserved in perpetuity through either fee ownership or a conservation easement held by a qualified conservation organization or agency, establishment of a preserve management plan, and guaranteed long-term funding for site preservation through the establishment of a management endowment. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to riparian habitats. Implementing agencies should require project applicants to prepare biological resources assessments for specific projects proposed in areas containing, or likely to contain, riparian habitats. The assessment should be conducted by appropriately trained professionals pursuant to adopted protocols, and standards in the industry. Mitigation measures should be identified when significance thresholds are exceeded. As detailed in Section 4.3 of this EIR (Biological Resources), a biological resource assessment was prepared for the proposed project consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-3. There are no impacts to special-status fish species associated with implementation of the proposed project. Preparation of this EIR and the project-specific analysis conducted as part of the EIR satisfy the requirements of this mitigation measure. Therefore, this mitigation measure will not be included in the MMRP prepared for the proposed project because it has been satisfied and no further actions or monitoring relating to this mitigation measure is necessary. As detailed in Section 4.3 of this EIR (Biological Resources), a biological resource assessment was prepared for the proposed project consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-4. There are no impacts related to riparian habitat associated with implementation of the proposed project. Preparation of this EIR and the project-specific analysis conducted as part of the EIR satisfy the requirements of this mitigation measure. Therefore, this mitigation measure will not be included in the MMRP prepared for the proposed Sacramento Commons Administrative Draft EIR AECOM City of Sacramento O-11 Applicable Mitigation Measures and Policies

14 Table O-1 MTP/SCS Programmatic Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Mitigation measures should be consistent with the requirements of CEQA, or follow an adopted HCP/NCCP or other applicable plans promulgated to protect species/habitat. Implementing agencies should design projects such that they avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts to riparian habitats where feasible, as defined in Section of the CEQA Guidelines. In general, if riparian vegetation is removed or disturbed, the project applicant will compensate for the loss of riparian vegetation. Compensation will be provided at a minimum 1:1 ratio for restoration and preservation, and may be a combination of onsite restoration/creation, offsite restoration, preservation, or mitigation credits. Project applicants should be required to develop a restoration and monitoring plan that describes how riparian habitat will be enhanced or recreated and monitored. At a minimum, the restoration and monitoring plan will include clear goals and objectives, success criteria, specifics on restoration/creation (plant palette, soils, irrigation, etc.), specific monitoring periods and reporting guidelines, and a maintenance plan. In general, any riparian restoration or creation will be monitored for a minimum of five years and will be considered successful when at least 75 percent of all plantings have become successfully established. Such mitigation sites will be dedicated either in fee or as an easement in perpetuity held by a qualified organization or agency. Guaranteed funding for maintenance of the mitigation sites shall be established. Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to oak woodland habitats. Implementing agencies should require project applicants to prepare biological resources assessments for specific projects proposed in areas containing, or likely to contain, oak woodland habitats. The assessment should be conducted by appropriately trained professionals pursuant to adopted protocols, and standards in the industry. Mitigation measures should be identified when significance thresholds are exceeded. Mitigation measures should be consistent with the requirements of CEQA, or follow an adopted HCP/NCCP or other applicable plans promulgated to protect species/habitat. Implementing agencies should design projects such that they avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts to oak woodland habitats where feasible, as defined in Section of the CEQA Guidelines. In general, if oak woodland vegetation is removed or disturbed, the project applicant will compensate for the loss. Compensation will be provided at a minimum 1:1 ratio for restoration and preservation, and may be a combination of onsite restoration/creation, offsite restoration, preservation, or mitigation credits. If mitigation is completed by the project applicant, it will develop a restoration and monitoring plan project because it has been satisfied and no further actions or monitoring relating to this mitigation measure is necessary. As detailed in Section 4.3 of this EIR (Biological Resources), a biological resource assessment was prepared for the proposed project consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-5. There are no impacts to oak woodlands associated with implementation of the proposed project. Preparation of this EIR and the project-specific analysis conducted as part of the EIR satisfy the requirements of this mitigation measure. Therefore, this mitigation measure will not be included in the MMRP prepared for the proposed project because it has been satisfied and no further actions or monitoring relating to this mitigation measure is necessary. AECOM Sacramento Commons Administrative Draft EIR Applicable Mitigation Measures and Policies O-12 City of Sacramento

15 Table O-1 MTP/SCS Programmatic Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure that describes how oak woodland habitat will be enhanced or recreated and monitored. At a minimum, the restoration and monitoring plan will include clear goals and objectives, success criteria, specifics on restoration/creation (plant palette, soils, irrigation, etc.), specific monitoring periods and reporting guidelines, and a maintenance plan. In general, any riparian restoration or creation will be monitored for a minimum of five years and will be considered successful when at least 75 percent of all plantings have become successfully established. Such mitigation sites will be dedicated either in fee or as an easement in perpetuity held by a qualified organization or agency. Guaranteed funding for maintenance of the mitigation sites shall be established. Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to wetland and other waters. Implementing agencies should require project applicants to prepare biological resources assessments for specific projects proposed in areas containing, or likely to contain, wetlands and other waters. The assessment should be conducted by appropriately trained professionals pursuant to adopted protocols, and standards in the industry. Mitigation measures should be identified when significance thresholds are exceeded. Mitigation measures should be consistent with the requirements of CEQA and USACE and SWRCB regulations and guidelines, and/or follow an adopted HCP/NCCP or other applicable plans promulgated to protect species/habitat. Implementing agencies should design projects such that they avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and other waters where feasible, as defined in section of the CEQA Guidelines. If wetlands and waters are filled or disturbed as part a specific project, the project applicant will compensate for the loss of wetland and waters to ensure there is no net loss of habitat functions and values. The compensation will be at a minimum 1:1 restoration ratio and a 1:1 preservation ratio. A restoration and monitoring plan should be developed and implemented if onsite or offsite restoration or creation is chosen. The plan should describe how wetlands should be created and monitored over a minimum of five years (or as required by the regulatory agencies). Such mitigation sites will be dedicated either in fee or as an easement in perpetuity held by a qualified organization or agency. Guaranteed funding for maintenance of the mitigation sites shall be established. Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to wildlife corridors. Implementing agencies should require project applicants to prepare detailed analyses for specific projects impacting the ECA lands occurring within their sphere of influence to determine what wildlife species may use these area and what habitats As detailed in Section 4.3 of this EIR (Biological Resources), a biological resource assessment was prepared for the proposed project consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-6. There are no impacts to wetlands associated with implementation of the proposed project. Preparation of this EIR and the project-specific analysis conducted as part of the EIR satisfy the requirements of this mitigation measure. Therefore, this mitigation measure will not be included in the MMRP prepared for the proposed project because it has been satisfied and no further actions or monitoring relating to this mitigation measure is necessary. As detailed in Section 4.3 of this EIR (Biological Resources), a biological resource assessment was prepared for the proposed project consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-7. The project site is in a developed urban area and does not contain wildlife movement corridors, streams or waterways, or native wildlife nursery sites. Preparation of this EIR and the project-specific Sacramento Commons Administrative Draft EIR AECOM City of Sacramento O-13 Applicable Mitigation Measures and Policies

16 Mitigation Measure Table O-1 MTP/SCS Programmatic Mitigation Measures those species require. The assessment should be conducted by appropriately trained professionals and standards in the industry. Mitigation implementation should be required when significance thresholds are exceeded. Mitigation should be consistent with the requirements of CEQA and/or follow an adopted HCP/NCCP or other relevant plans promulgated to protect species/habitat. Implementing agencies should design projects such that they avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts to wildlife corridors where feasible, as defined in section of the CEQA Guidelines. Design considerations may include but would not be limited to the following: Constructing wildlife friendly overpasses and culverts; Using wildlife friendly fences that allow larger wildlife such as deer to get over, and smaller wildlife to go under; Limiting wildland conversions in identified wildlife corridors; and Retaining wildlife friendly vegetation in and around developments. Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Avoid, minimize, and mitigate for impacts on protected trees and other biological resources protected by local ordinances. Implementing agencies should require project applicants to prepare biological resources assessments for specific projects proposed in areas containing, or likely to contain, protected trees or other locally protected biological resources. The assessment should be conducted by appropriately trained professionals pursuant to adopted protocols, and standards in the industry. Mitigation should be implemented when significance thresholds are exceeded. Mitigation should be consistent with the requirements of CEQA and/or follow an adopted HCP/NCCP or other applicable plans promulgated to protect species/habitat. Implementing agencies should design projects such that they avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts to protected trees and other locally protected resources where feasible, defined in section of the CEQA Guidelines. At a minimum, qualifying protected trees (or other resources) will be replaced at 1:1 in locally approved mitigation sites. analysis conducted as part of the EIR satisfy the requirements of this mitigation measure. Therefore, this mitigation measure will not be included in the MMRP prepared for the proposed project because it has been satisfied and no further actions or monitoring relating to this mitigation measure is necessary. As detailed in Section 4.3 of this EIR (Biological Resources), projectspecific mitigation will be implemented to avoid significant impacts related to conflicts with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation ordinance, including replacing protected trees that require removal to implement the proposed project (see Mitigation Measure 4.3-2). Mitigation Measure was developed to address the project site context and is consistent with the recommendations in Mitigation Measure BIO-8 (which was developed in anticipation of regionwide impacts). An arborist report was prepared to support the EIR, including addressing impacts to protected trees (see Appendix M of this EIR for more detail). As part of project-level environmental review, implementing agencies will ensure that projects comply with the most recent general plans, policies, and ordinances, and conservation plans. Review of these documents and compliance with their requirements will be demonstrated in project-level environmental documentation. Review of these documents and compliance with their requirements should be demonstrated in project-level environmental documentation. Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Avoid and minimize, and mitigate for construction-related impacts. Implementing agencies should require project applicants to prepare biological resources assessments for specific projects proposed in areas containing, or likely to contain, sensitive biological resources. The assessment should be conducted by As detailed in Section 4.3 of this EIR (Biological Resources), a biological resource assessment was prepared for the proposed project consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-9. There are no impacts to biological resources associated with implementation of the proposed project with the exception of potential impacts related to special-status wildlife species (nesting birds) and conflicts with local tree preservation guidelines. Mitigation Measures AECOM Sacramento Commons Administrative Draft EIR Applicable Mitigation Measures and Policies O-14 City of Sacramento